The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-01-26
MCGIFFIN AND MCCHESNEY.
The Former Gets Three Years, the
Latter Six Months at Hard Labor.
with a Fine of $3.50.

with a Fine of $3.50.
Soon after the Supreme Court opened
Yesterday morning McGiffin and Nc
Chesney were arraigned before the Chief
Justice to receive sentence. The partic
ulars of the case for which they were
tried are fresh in the minds of our read
ers. McChesney pleaded guilty OF steal
ing large sum of money from his father
and accused McGiffin of receiving it,
knowing it to be stolen. The jury
brought in unanimous verdict against
McGifIin for receiving sto len property.
Mr. Creighton, who defended Nc
Giffin, asked for a mitigation of SEN
tence He thought the nature of the
testimony ought to have some mitigat
ing effect.
Mr.. Thurston, on behalf of McChes-
ney, said that if it had not been for the
evidence of his client there would have
been no conviction i'll either case. 1t
was given voluntarily on his part. He
asked for leniency on account of Nc
Chesney's extreme youth, he being only
Is years OF age. His father was about to
leave the country largely through this
affair, as he and his family felt it keenly.
He (the father wants to take the boy
along with him SO as to remove him
from his former associates. The re-
quirements of justice would be met by
small sentence of imprisonment. The
boy had been already three months or
more in prison. Any fine would be a
further sum taken out OF his fathers
pocket. His loss in the 5000 odd had
been quite sufficient. 1t would certainly
not be towards reformation to send this
boy on the reef and let him be along
clusion, Mr.. Thurston hoped the Court
would pass a nominal sentence.
His Excellency Antoine Rosa, Attor-
ney General, said he considered leniency
should be shown blythe Court towards
McChesney on account of his age and
his associations at the time. If it had
not been for his evidence the case would
not have come before the Court. He
would ask the Court on his behalf to
pass as light sentence as the circum-
stances of the case would warrant. With
regard to McGiffin, he did not feel like
asking for any leniency at all. He had
led young McChesney into the affair,
and pat the family to considerable shame
and annoyance and perhaps disgrace.
The Court knows McGitfin well; his
name appears on the criminal record.
He is not a proper person to have in the
country. Ample time had been given
him to make restitution, but he had not
done so. He asked the Court to pass an
exemplary sentence upon the prisoner.
His Honor the Chief Justice, in pass
ing sentence, said he wished our prison
was differently managed as regards the
classification of criminals. The Court,
however, had no part in legislation, and
it is a matter to be brou ght before the
Legislature. 1t was too bad to have TO
send young boy among criminals. He
felt he could not look at the matter in
light manner. He must pass such SEN
tence on McChesney as would be warn
ing to other young men in the country.
He regretted to have to do it, but he
must. He had no wish to punish the
parents; they had been punished suf-
ficiently already. The young boy evil
IDENTITY possessed Il hardened heart, and
showed willingness in this case. With
regard to McGiffin, he had as yet made
no restitution. Had he done so, only Il
fine would have been imposed. He has
a bad record. The records of the Court
show him to be bad. In 1879 he (the
Chief Justice) sentenced him to a long
term of Imprisonment for similar Of
Tense. Without further commenting on the
case he would sentence McChesney to six
months imprisonment at hard labor and
to pay a fine of $3.50, and McGiffin to
three years at hard labor with fine of
$3.50.
Both prisoners were then removed,
and shortly afterwards sent on the reef.